Agrippina wrote:they were either sucking the words out of their thumbs or simply incorrect

I need to catalog that one; it's a dandy.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Agrippina wrote:they were either sucking the words out of their thumbs or simply incorrect

I need to catalog that one; it's a dandy.

I was going to say something else but then tried to be a lady.

logical bob wrote:Aggie, I think you're cutting Biblical believers far too much slack by allowing that the Bible might be intended as factual in the way Thucydides was trying to be. If the Bible in general and the Gospels in particular were really based on what people who were there told the author or the author's imperfect recollections of something he saw it would be a historical source in the way Thucydides is. The theological content of the Bible makes it a different beast altogether.

I always try to be fair, especially to the under-educated and uninformed. Most people can't help being closed-minded about religion, they're brainwashed from childhood and indoctrinated to ignore all learning that disagrees with their knowledge of God.

Pointing out to them that The Peloponnesian War and Herodotus' Histories were written about the same time as the OT, yet, even with their faults, they are regarded as a valid source for history, while the Bible isn't. They need to question that. It's not just that the "nasty atheists" are being mean but because their book simply doesn't agree with the evidence, but those two do. So simple to understand.

Sigh!

What we have learned from history is precisely that we have not learned from history.